[OT] Question about Git branches

Robert Kern robert.kern at gmail.com
Tue Sep 16 21:11:50 CEST 2014

On 2014-09-16 17:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but this is due to different design decisions of git and Mercurial. git
>> prioritized the multiple branches in a single clone use case; Mercurial
>> prioritized re-cloning. It's natural to do this kind of branching in git,
>> and more natural to re-clone in Mercurial.
> Ah, I wasn't aware of that philosophical difference. Does hg use
> hardlinks or something to minimize disk usage when you clone, or does
> it actually copy everything? (Or worse, does it make the new directory
> actually depend on the old one?)

I haven't kept up with the internals recently, but at least at one point, 
hardlinks were the order of the day, yes.

Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco

More information about the Python-list mailing list